BTW, I read the article mentioned by a poster above: "AI has been solved". Might I politely say that instead of writing about how you've been oppressed, a short clear description of what your idea is would speak volumes: but an impressive demo would be indisputable.

Computer science is unlike other technical fields. If I write a theoretical paper about astrophysics, I'm not expected to go out and detect the phenomenon I'm describing: but computer science is so young that theory lags behind practice in many cases.

If you have something new, show it to us. It can be a toy demo, but it should do one new thing, or demonstrate clearly one new technique.

To be honest, just the formulation is unconvincing. There is no "problem of AI" - there are hundreds or thousands. Some of them we've already almost solved (like voice recognition/speech to text) - some of them we have made little progress in 50 years (like reasoning about facts taken from text).

Your Mentifex model has some aspects of interest: it reminds me to some extent of Hawkins' writings in "On Intelligence", which I commend to your attention. And he doesn't have a demo either. :-D

But he does have a lot of corroborating information from neuroscience, which is fairly convincing. And he has the monster track record. :-D

(and if you're trying to publish in scientific journals, lose the fancy name - it sounds like "TimeCube" or something - give your paper a descriptive name without advertising claims like "A multi-level model of the human brain.")